Spooky action at a distance, you bet!

[Steven Sesselmann]

Einstein is known to have objected to quantum predictions that suggest entangled particles can be separated to vast distances and when the state of one particle is observed the state of the other is instantly known, he apparently called it "spooky action at a distance".

Well it may not bee so spooky after all, because what my theory predicts is even more spooky..

The equation that describes the relationship between the electrons potential and the protons potential as follows;

\[\phi_e=\frac{\Phi-\phi_{gnd}}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{\phi_{gnd}^2}{\Phi^2}}\]

Where upper case Phi stands for the proton potential.

What this equation says, is the electrons potential is half the difference between the observers potential and the proton potential multilied by the gamma factor, now that's pretty amazing in itself, but wait there is more...

Understanding the implicatins of this equation goes a lot deeper, because there is nothing in this equation to say that it only affects local electrons and protons.


Yes, this is where it becomes really spooky, because it says, the ratio of every electron and proton in the entire Universe changes as a result of the observers potential. In practical terms that means when you climb a ladder, the mass ratio of the electrons and protons in the Andromeda galaxy change..., now that's spooky!

In our daily persuits the changes in our potential are relatively small, up and down a ladder might mean a few volts, back and forth in our car might mean a few more volts, but hardly enough to cause a disaster, however some time in the distant future, when our potentials have fallen to 469 MeV, this equation states that every electron in the universe will also be at 469 meV, which predicts that the entire Universe will annihilate at that moment for that observer.

But don't worry, it's a long time from now..

A nicer way to explain this equation is to say that it puts us in charge of our own destiny, it says what we do changes the world, so maybe we should call it the destiny equation.

Steven

Have any questions? Then register above and post your questions, you don't need a PHD to understand the world.

[Gerry Nightingale]

Regarding your conclusions of "Spooky Actions at a Distance" the answer is NO.
Wave-propagation denies this, as well as Relativity theory and the principles of "action and equal and opposite reaction". (there is no way for an "action" to communicate at it's origin to the rest of the Universe...such a premise
would dictate the resurrection of "aether theory" as an actual feature of the known Universe)

Gerry

[Steven Sesselmann]

Gerry,

Before you jump to any conclusion about the above subject, read it carefully and hear what I am saying. I am not actually suggesting that there is a physical action at a distance, what I was trying to communicate is that the world looks the way it does because of the observers potential.

Think of it a bit like putting on a pair of hippie glasses with pink lenses, the sky and the moon will look pink, but nothing physically has changed in the sky or on the moon, it is you the observer that has changed, right?

Ground Potential suggests a similar effect, that the observers potential determines how the world looks. This insight has enormous implications, because it means we have free will after all, and that we do not live in a deterministic Universe like Newton or even Einsteins theory suggests.

It takes effort and a shift in the way we have been tought to think, to see how this works.

The world is what you want it to be, so make it a good one ;)

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

Steven...I understand the "substance" of what you wrote in reply, but if you presented this philosophy to a "real"
physics professor there in Australia he or she is going to think you have overdosed on bufotoxin (toadlicking) and
put in a call for an ambulance!

I am NOT making "sport" of you, it's just that your explanations would seem "all style and no substance" to someone
who has not read your "papers"...all "modern theory" is "all about the numbers", Steven.

Gerry

[Steven Sesselmann]

Gerry,

I have backed up my statements with the numbers, it looks right to me, and I am happy for anyone to point out the fatal flaw. It is not uncommon to find two completely different ways to express the same thing, it happened between Heisenberg and Dirac in QM.

What might be possible is my theory predicts the same outcome as the standard model and people will say, why change?

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

StevenS...Cheers!

Have you managed to have "someone important" give you an evaluation of your "posits?" Surely someone there
has enough time to read a synopsis and give you an answer of "what they think". As for myself, I cannot envision
"spooky action at a distance" as having merit in the sense of "real time" Relativity factors.

......

As a side-issue, I've been "banned" from three sites now for essentially writing "heresy". (This must be some sort of record!) I think I will give it a rest from this point, as my own "stuff" is too deviant from mainstream physics to
participate in a so-called "physics forum".
The Mods and Admins. seem to have the sole purpose of muezzins calling "the faithful" to "prayer" in regard to QM.

My best regards, Gerry.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Gerry,

The only thing spooky here is how no one seems to havean opinion on anything ;)

Forum has been dead quiet, but that's fine, did you know it took from 1905 until 1919 before Einstein's special relativity was accepted?

Sorry to hear that you are blacklisted on all the forums, but dont worry, those guys, no nothing, all they do is book bashing, it makes them feel smart.

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

StevenS

I am sorry to hear you have yet to have any official "proofing" of your work (I'm assuming this)
I have read your posits, and I believe there is substance here to work with...although there is definite lack of
explanation(s) with regard to "causality".
I do see direct corollaries involved w/ my own "stuff", at least wrt energy and matter (w/energy as a pre-existent
potential, a state independent of matter)

An easy concept to observe is lightning...what is not "easy" is to explain the manifestation of electrical energy as
a "by-product" of molecular friction of air moving at slow velocities! Here is where your "ground-potential" and my own
concepts say "Hello" to each other...each recognizing the other as "fellow travelers" co-existing in the same Universe.
"Causality" and "Potential" equal "Manifestation" via the mechanisms of friction.

......
In regard to "Phys. sites" I have very little desire to participate anymore...everyone seems bent on proving that
"magic is real because the numbers say so!" or least this how I interpret almost all of the posts!
The odd thing (to me at least) is that there seems to be NO interest at all in ANY truly new works...just a constant
re-hash of the same tired old equations and suppositions that have yet to be proven as having any real substance
or merit! Can you imagine people STILL arguing over the implications of Minkowski's gravity interpretations???
Or the "twin paradox?" These are over a hundred years old! And still no answers...just more arcana of calculus and
"what it means". (all of these things have NEVER come to fruition, and never will)

My best regards, Gerry
p.s., have you ever given thought to "youtube" as a viable option for "groundpotential?" I think some illustrations
would definitely get attention! Perhaps a "mini-movie" type of thing?

[Steven Sesselmann]

Gerry,

Yes indeed, lightning is one of those fenomenon that seems to have no satisfactory classic explanation, it's a wishy washy story of charges building up in clouds as a resilult of friction etc..

I am confident that GP theory could give a better explanation, so let me mull over that one for a bit.

On your youtube suggestion, it's on my list of things to do, but I have to be in the right mood for it ;)

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

StevenS...Guten Morgen!

So...you think the answers available regarding lightning are "wishy-washy?" Me too! The question of charge-potentials
in cloud formations is, to me, unanswerable from an ab initio state if modern theories are used. I mentioned this on
3 sites, and the only responses I could get involved book-thumping and Wiki "quotes".

Go ahead and take your time formulating an answer...yet I'm anxious to read it! I want to see "where you go" and "how
you got there". The question of lightning has answers that imply much more than "surface values".

Cheerio! Gerry